Please post suggestions as to how you think current features of the site may be improved.
This topic has now been discontinued. Please create a new topic in this forum for each suggested improvement you have.
The current identification system works well in that a number of identifications can be made, but there's no "this is the correct id" (especially needed if revisions can not be edited, which I think is OK).
I'm not sure who/how the "correct ID" would be reached - maybe based on the spot-ons - the one with the highest rises to the position of "most likely correct"
How this would be dealt with regarding multiple IDs in the same photo I leave to someone else...
I think it would be a good idea to emphasis the "international" location of observations; e.g. UK, Russia etc. A mandatory "country" field when entering an observation might be an option. Or a global map on the observation page with a marker.
Some place names are quite obviously in another country.. but others are not!
Apologies if this is a bit picky but it comes from years spent as a copy-editor and proofreader.
I wanted to know about Reputation on iSpot so went to the appropriate Help section. There I learnt that â€œYou gain points for the iSpot Groups when other people say 'Spot on!' to one of your identifications.â€ This Help section frequently mentioned â€œSpot onâ€.
But when I looked for â€œSpot onâ€ on the identification pages I couldn't find it at all. However I did find â€œI agree!â€ Perhaps in the past a decision was made that â€œSpot onâ€ was just a bit too colloquial.
Whatever the reason, I think that for the sake of consistency and to avoid confusion the wording in the Help section should include â€œI agree!â€ rather than â€œSpot onâ€.
Thanks very much for your feedback. The copy in the help section has been updated.
iSpot - Technical Team
Is anybody else finding that on the main iSpot page the Latest Observations are duplicated and some there are even more copies.?
This only started happening this morning.
Wildlife of Assynt
At the moment you cannot edit the Notes text or any other field in an ID, so if you make a typo you cannot correct this. I realize we don't want people going back to correct IDs because they are supposed to use the revisions function, but you don't even get a chance to proof-read (preview) your entry as you do with other parts of the site. Can this be changed?
University of Edinburgh and Biodiversity Observatory (OU)
I like the simplicity of entering species and the ability to use look up tables but to make the info collected even more useful could "we" add in the above fields into the recording scheme?
but add it as an "advanced" feature/button - to prevent clutter for the more general user
Thanks for the suggestion. These fields would not be relevant to every observation and might only be used in a small minority. You can always add such information in the description field or as a comment.
More generally, we are reviewing how the data in iSpot can be fed through to recording schemes, which is where the kind of data you mention would come into its own. This is not what iSpot was created for, but we can see that it is already generating useful data so we shall certainly be doing something about this is due course.